Friday, 30 July 2010

Four Shocking Bombshells Bernanke Did NOT Tell Congress About Last Week

by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D. 07-26-10

Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.

In his testimony before Congress last week, Ben Bernanke lifted the Fed’s skirt and gave us a glimpse of the disasters now sweeping through the U.S. economy.

But there are four bombshells he did NOT talk about:

FIRST and foremost, what’s CAUSING the economy to sink? The stock market has not yet crashed. Interest rates have not yet surged. Gasoline prices have not skyrocketed. There has been no recent debt collapse, market shock, or terrorist attack.

So what is the invisible force that’s suddenly gutting the housing market, driving consumer confidence into a sinkhole, and killing the recovery that Washington was so avidly touting just a few months ago?

Bernanke won’t say. But the answer is clear: The recovery had very little substance to begin with. Rather, it was, in essence, a mirage — a dead cat bounce bought and paid for by Washington’s massive bailouts, stimulus programs, and money printing.

Put another way, the recession never really ended. Yes, we saw some growth in GDP. And yes, thanks to that growth, some companies are still reporting better earnings — the news that spurred a rally in the stock market last week. But at the core of the economy, the fires that started the recession are still burning intensely.

SECOND, Bernanke failed to point how that …

The U.S. Housing Market Is Now LOCKED Into a Chronic, Long-Term DepressionHouseing sector resumes worst collapse in U.S. history!

Housing starts — the most important measure of the housing industry — is still a disaster zone.

Beginning in January 2006, they suffered their worst plunge in recorded history — from an annual rate of 2.3 million to a meager 477,000 in April 2009. Thus …

In just three years, 79 percent of America’s largest industry, impacting more Americans than any other, was wiped away.

Then, despite a series of government agency programs to shore up the industry … plus $1.25 trillion poured in by the Fed to buy up mortgage-backed securities … plus a big tax credit for new homebuyers, housing starts perked up ever so slightly: They recovered to an annual rate of 612,000 in January of this year.

But this recovery was so small, it retraced just 7.5 percent of the prior fall. In other words,

Even after massive government efforts, and even at the highest point in their recovery this year, the housing industry recouped less than one-tenth of its historic three-year bust from 2006 to 2009.

Worse, the housing industry has now resumed its decline.

The most alarming factor: Widespread “strategic defaults” on home mortgages.

These are defaults by homeowners who can afford to meet their monthly mortgage payments, but have deliberately decided to stop paying.

They realize their home is worth less than they owe on the mortgage — transforming it into a dead asset they’re willing to give up. They know their bank, already overwhelmed with foreclosures, won’t get around to evicting them for as long as two years, allowing them to live in the house cost-free. They also know this tactic can give them tens of thousands of dollars in extra cash. So they’re defaulting en masse and getting away with it.

End result:

* New supplies of foreclosed homes hitting the market as far as the eye can see … * Bankers who would rather cut their wrists than finance new homes, and … * A new slump in housing that’s worse than even some pessimists were expecting.

THIRD, despite his now-famous quote that this is “the worst labor market since the Great Depression,” Bernanke failed to reveal that …

Official Government Data GROSSLY Understates the Magnitude of UnemploymentLong-term joblessness worst ever recorded!

Bernanke did not mention that the percentage of long-term unemployed in America is the worst it’s been since the government began keeping records in 1948. Two facts:

Fact #1: A record 4.39 percent of the work force — or 46.2 percent of the unemployed — have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. That’s DOUBLE the worst level ever recorded and TRIPLE the peak level seen in five of the past six recessions.

Fact #2: On average, America’s unemployed have been out of work for 35.2 weeks, also the highest on record.

Bernanke did not remind Congress that, based on the government’s own broad measure, the true unemployment rate in the U.S. is not 9.5 percent. It’s 16.5 percent — or seven full percentage points more than the figure Mr. Bernanke likes to refer to.

This broader measure includes workers seeking full-time employment, but temporarily settling for lower paying part-time jobs. Plus, it’s supposed to also include “discouraged workers” — those who have given up looking for work because there are no jobs to be found.

Nor did Bernanke confess that, during the Clinton administration, discouraged workers were “redefined” to EXCLUDE those who had been out of work for more than a year — and that definition continues to be used to this day.

That makes absolutely no sense. If they’re out of work for a year, they’re discouraged. But as soon as they’re out of work for a year and one day, it’s suddenly assumed they’re happily going about their life?!

Thus, precisely when economists now recognize that one of the biggest challenges of this Great Recession is long-term unemployment … the Obama administration, both parties in Congress, and all U.S. government agencies continue to exclude the longest term unemployed from every single one of their unemployment statistics.

This could go down in history as one of the greatest deceptions about the true state of U.S. labor markets. And according to John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, it’s big:

When you add these long-term discouraged workers back into the jobless count, you find that the real unemployment rate in the U.S. is actually 21.6 percent!

FOURTH, Bernanke failed to point out that all this is happening despite …

The Biggest Government Interventions of ALL TIME!

The full scope of the government’s interventions is now official:

In its July 21 Quarterly Report to Congress, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) tabulates the government’s bailouts, stimulus programs, and money printing escapades since the debt crisis struck in 2007, as follows:

Incremental Financial System Support

According to SIGTARP, at mid-year 2010,

* The Fed has pumped in $1.7 trillion through its massive purchases of mortgage bonds, Treasury bonds, and agency bonds. * The FDIC has thrown another $300 billion into the pot, shutting down over 100 banks so far this year. * The Treasury has pumped in a net of $300 billion in TARP money (even after paybacks), plus another $500 billion in money outside of the TARP program. * Plus, several other government agencies have chipped in another $800 billion.

These official numbers are actually LARGER than we were estimating. We had the total pegged at $3.5 trillion (not billion), including the 2009 stimulus package.

SIGTARP has it at $3.7 trillion, excluding the stimulus but including a myriad other rescue programs — by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Veterans Affair (VA).

But no matter how you count it, some outstanding facts are absolutely self-evident:

FACT: The enormous magnitude of the government’s intervention FAR surpasses anything ever witnessed in the history of humankind.

FACT: It’s not working! Housing is still collapsed. Long-term unemployment is the worst ever recorded. And the recovery, already anemic, is aborting prematurely.

FACT: Most important, it’s winding down! Through mid-2009, the government intervention programs tabulated by SIGTARP were being ramped up at a furious pace — a total of $3 trillion overall.

So over the 12-month period from mid-2008 through mid-2009, we estimate they were running at the average monthly pace of about $160 billion.

But since mid-2009, they have been far slower, running at an average monthly pace of only $58 billion, or just one-third the prior level.

And right now, the pace of new funds injected into the economy through these government rescues are merely a trickle compared to their earlier rate:

* No new stimulus is in the works. * No new TARP funds are forthcoming. * The Fed has wrapped up its bond buying splurge. * And the ONLY significant continuing programs are for housing — the one area where the government has admittedly seen the WORST overall results, according to SIGTARP.

Bottom line:

If you were counting on the government to prevent the second major leg in this great double-dip recession, don’t hold your breath. To the contrary, the primary CAUSE of the second dip is the government’s conspicuous absence from sectors where it was, until now, the biggest mover, shaker, buyer, and financier.

Your ACTION

With this rapidly shifting quicksand, you must NOT be lured by Wall Street’s siren songs. You must not get trapped again in vulnerable stocks, mutual funds, or ETFs. Instead …

1. Greatly reduce your exposure to stocks, especially in sectors tied to housing, such as construction, home improvement, consumer appliances, and mortgage finance. 2. Move the proceeds to cash and cash equivalent, regardless of low yields.

Banishment from Hollywood by Jews for saying that Jews control Hollywood

By Sharon Waxman & Brent Lang | The Wrap | July 27, 2010

A furious Haim Saban has mounted a campaign to get Showtime to cancel its planned airing of Oliver Stone’s 10-part series, “A Secret History of America,” in the wake of anti-Jewish remarks by the outspoken director.

Stone’s apology “is transparently fake,” Saban said in an interview with TheWrap. “He has been consistent in his anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks. I respect his First Amendment rights. I hope he respects mine.”

The billionaire and outspoken media mogul told TheWrap he had contacted CBS chief Leslie Moonves to urge him to pull the series.

He said that WME chairman Ari Emanuel had also called CBS privately to urge the series be pulled. update: WME had no comment.

Stone has previously said the 10-part “Secret History” series would put Hitler and Stalin “in context,” and offer an alternative crash course to the “grossly inadequate history” taught by American schools and proffered by mass media.

CBS, Moonves and Emanuel did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Saban also said he had called CAA partner Bryan Lourd, Stone’s agent, to follow the example of Emanuel, who recently dropped Mel Gibson in the wake of the actor’s latest racist tirade.

Saban said he considers Stone to be “clearly an anti-Semite and an anti-American.”

In venting his outrage, Saban has become the first big Hollywood name to publicly criticize Stone for his controversial remarks about the Holocaust.

“This guy should be helped in joining Mel Gibson into the land of retirement, where he can preach his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the wilderness where he belongs,” Saban told TheWrap in an email.

Stone kicked off a media firestorm over the weekend for telling a reporter from London’s Sunday Times that Adolf Hitler, the subject of his upcoming documentary, did more damage to Russia than he did to the Jews. He also stated that the U.S.’s support for Israel is the result of Jewish domination of the media.

Stone apologized Monday afternoon saying his comments were “clumsy” and that contrary to his earlier remarks, Jews didn’t control the media or any industry for that matter.

That wasn’t good enough for Saban.

“His love of [Venezuelan president Hugo] Chavez has always bothered me, but here he went too far, and his apology is sooooo transparently fake,” Saban wrote. “He should be embarrassed by it, and has certainly done nothing to calm my outrage at this guy’s positions.”

Saban, a major stakeholder in Univision and chairman of Saban Capital Group, said he is spreading the word among his Hollywood friends to avoid working with Stone.

“Anyone who works with this guy, should be ashamed of him/herself, and shouldn’t share that fact with their neighbors, or kids for that matter,” Saban said.

It’s not certain that his appeal will reach sympathetic ears, as others in the movie business seem more willing to move on following Stone’s mea culpa.

This is why we have to act now to defuse the demographic time bomb, or else mass immigration will explode into civil war and anarchy on our streets.

Migrants will end up driving our population higher than Germany's

By Steve DoughtyLast updated at 8:45 AM on 30th July 2010

* Comments (136) * Add to My Stories

In 40 years time, Britain's population will have climbed close to 80million

In 40 years time, Britain's population will have climbed close to 80million

Britain is destined to become the most heavily populated country in Europe, U.S. experts predicted yesterday.

They said that in 40 years' time Germany will have lost its position as the European country with the highest number of people, which it has held since it was founded as a unified country 140 years ago.

While Britain's population will have climbed close to 80million, there will be just 71.5million Germans in 2050, a report said.

The estimates from the U.S. pressure group Population Reference Bureau follow the disclosure earlier this week that a third of all the population growth in Europe is now concentrated in Britain.

The figures supplied by the U.S. organisation say that Germany's population will have fallen by 11million by 2050, thanks to its falling birth rates and low levels of immigration.

But in Britain - where numbers will reach 70million in 2029 according to official projections - there will be 77million people by 2050, the report said.

In comparison, France, the next most populous European nation, will have seen numbers climb from the current 66.1million to just 70million.

Both France and Germany currently have far more people than the 62million estimated numbers in Britain.

But neither has the high immigration levels which mean numbers in this country are rising much faster than anywhere else on the continent.

Official estimates say that around two thirds of population growth in Britain is a result of high immigration. The latest predictions of the effects of immigration and population growth came as David Cameron tried to put an end to Coalition differences by insisting there will be a cap on numbers coming into the country.

More...

* Cameron stands firm on migrant cap despite facing mutiny on policy * Nearly 100,000 new homes must be built every year for immigrants

The arguments between ministers - with Business Secretary Vince Cable calling for a 'liberal' immigration policy - have come as a spate of new figures give fresh impetus to concerns over the impact of rising population.FURY OVER SARKOZY'S 'ETHNIC CLEANSING'French president Nicolas Sarkozy

The French president has been accused of ethnic cleansing after ordering the expulsion of thousands of gipsies who are illegal immigrants.

Nicolas Sarkozy provoked fury by calling Roma camps 'sources of trafficking, exploitation of children and prostitution'.

Malik Salemkour, of the French Human Rights League, said: 'This is ethnic cleansing and the criminalisationof misery.' Others warned Mr Sarkozy's language had chilling undertones of France's role in sending gipsies to concentration camps in World War II.

Mr Sarkozy's crackdown came after violent clashes between police and gipsies two weeks ago. He held a meeting on Wednesday with ministers and police, but critics were angry that he did not include Roma leaders.

European figures earlier this week showed that numbers in Britain swelled by 412,000 in 2009, almost a third of all population growth in the 27 EU countries.

Yesterday ministers disclosed a Whitehall analysis which showed 100,000 new homes will be required each year for the next 25 years simply to cope with the numbers of immigrants arriving in the country.

The Population Reference Bureau, which campaigns for the spread of contraception as a means of controlling population numbers around the world, published figures similar to those first calculated by the United Nations last year.

The UN accepted official British estimates that the population of this country will grow by 174,000 a year as a result of migration.

But in Germany migration will add only 110,000 a year to the population while birth rates are falling, and in France, migration will mean an extra 100,000 people each year.

Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, the backbench Labour and Tory MPs who head the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration, said in a statement that it was necessary to restrict immigration.

'If this is to be achieved, whilst retaining the flexibility that our economy needs, we must ensure that economic migration no longer confers an almost automatic right to settle here.'

Wednesday, 28 July 2010

The various extremist 'cults' of all Islamic sects are offshoots of the original Islam meme that have evolved into their own distinct forms, during the long periods of historical human / meme bio-feedback.

All such beliefs are nothing more than 'memes' which infect human minds and then take control of their host and change its hosts behaviour / culture rather as Toxoplasmosis does with cats, rats and humans ;

As a meme the various sects of Islam, like all such memes, have their own distinct pathology.

As with all memes, if one wishes to 'kill' it, then you must target those infected with the meme and also those who are transmitting it. At the same time you must 'jam' its transmission into the wider community.

That means moderate Muslims must speak out loudly and constantly condemn Islamists of all sects and work to keep extremist sects from spreading into their communities.

This prevents the spread of the progenitors of rogue memes like Wahhabism and Deobanidismn that assist in the spawning of ever more extremist memes such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban spreading into a community and infecting new individuals.

This is why you see Deobandi Shiites in Pakistan attacking Sufi's.

It is a war of memes, played out by their meat puppets.

At the same time as moderate Islam speaks out and condemns the extremists, the state must hunt down and deal with the extremists and the promoters of extremism.

Neither requirements are being undertaken at sufficient levels at the moment.

The suspects were held at Poole police station and a police station in Southampton, following last Thursday’s arrests.

The English Defence League is a contentious group that has been leading “anti-Muslim extremism” demonstrations around England since 2009.

Thousands of people have attended its protests – many of which have involved racist and Islamophobic chanting.

However, organisers insist it is not a racist organisation.

A number of violent clashes have also taken place at EDL demonstrations since the group first emerged in Luton last year.

In a statement to the Daily Echo, Mr Broomfield said: “While travelling home from work I was stopped and arrested by armed police. I was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion at a Bournemouth mosque.

“Five other members of the EDL were also arrested and held for 24 hours for questioning while searches of their homes took place. Then all of us were released without charge.

“There has been no conspiracy.

“There has never been any conspiracy. The EDL is not a terrorist organisation.”

A spokesman for Dorset Police said: “Dorset Police can confirm that as part of an investigation surrounding threats to a Bournemouth mosque a total of seven people were arrested for conspiracy to cause an explosion.

“Following an investigation police can now confirm these people have been released without charge.

“We can also confirm that one of the people arrested was detained safely by armed officers in the Corfe Castle area.

“We’ve been working very closely with the Muslim community since last Thursday and our local safer neighbourhood teams have been providing advice and reassurance throughout.

“At this stage there is no indication whatsoever that any of the mosques in Dorset are under threat of attack.”

No wonder the corporate media love Obama, as he is a puppet of the same bankers and corporations that own the media.

Why doesnt the media ever discuss the over representation of Jews in the banking system of America, nor their over representation in politics, the supreme court, in relation to lobby groups and in politics ?

While Goldman Sachs’ lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman Sachs' chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein (Jew) traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman’s political action committee, its employees and their relatives.

He also met twice with Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers (Jew).

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

"I think we didn't get the information because they consider it very embarrassing," Grassley said, "and they ought to consider it very embarrassing."...

For far too long white liberals and marxists, organised Jewish groups and organised black groups themselves have exploited Affirmative Action for their own benefit, the liberals to undermine American nationalism, the Jewish groups to undermine WASP society in order to empower their own community and the black groups simply for personal gain.

Note the words above which were reputed to be a sign on the doors of hotels in Britain.

In the debate on race, the real racists always ignore the fact that the White Irish Catholics were as much discriminated against as the blacks.

No-One ever mentions the plight of poor, white Irish people in Britain who suffered as much racial discrimination as the blacks.

The whole issue of racial discrimination when mentioned in the context of that sign on the doors of hotels, is only ever directed at the plight of the blacks affected by it and never the plight of the Irish affected by it.

There are no affirmative action plans for the Irish British people living in Britain and who suffered discrimination the same as the blacks did - the people whose plight is recognised and publicised are the blacks, never the Irish.

The same thing occurred in America.

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite that ran America treated the poor whites even worse than the blacks.

Owning a slave was something only the rich whites did.

A slave was a 'luxury item' that was the privilege of only the wealthy.

Owning a slave was the equivalent today of owning a Ferrari sports car, it was the privilege only of the rich.

And the rich were only White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and a few black slave owners who had grown rich from selling black slaves to whites.

The poor white Irish, Italian, Welsh and Scottish Catholics in America at that time were not slave owners - they were slaves themselves working as indentured slave labour alongside black slaves for the WASP elite.

The KKK despised and killed Irish Catholics as much as they killed blacks.

Yet there have never been affirmative action plans for poor whites - why ?

Because the idiot liberals, the Jewish groups and the ethnic minority groups were all out to advance their interests and not the interests of FAIRNESS.

Talk about reparations for slavery is always a black issue - why arent the descendants of poor, white catholics allowed to demand reparations for the socio-economic injustices that have resulted in their descendants remaining in the lowest social classes and living in the same poverty as blacks ?

Why are Jews still able to use affirmative action plans when they are amongst the richest and most successful and over represented community in America ?

Why are rich, middle class blacks able to still claim affirmative action privileges when they are rich and middle class whilst poor, working class, whites cannot ?

On every level affirmative action is a racist ploy to undermine the cohesion of American society, to peddle racial grievances in society that only marxists and liberals benefit from and to deny social justice to those poor working class whites who have suffered far more than blacks have in America.

The blacks are suffering in America today due to their own community failures based on family breakdown, having children outside of marriage and because of the spread of gang and bling culture. Their plight is nothing to do with whites or slavery. It is a product of their own community dysfunction.

The corporate media though try and hide this, whilst politicians are dependent upon the the media to get elected - so such issues are not aired.

If you mention something the Jewish community do not want mentioned, such as their over representation in the media, politics, Hollywood and finance, then you are called an 'anti-semite'.

When you mention something the black community do not like, such as crime, the vast numbers of rapes of white women by black males and single parent family numbers and children born out of wedlock that increases poverty and hence social failure in black children, then you are called a 'racist'.

And so the only people who the media can racially abuse and racially denigrate are whites, as whites have no 'word' to define the racists who attack them on the grounds of their race or a word to define the racial discrimination against poor, white, working class, Catholic, Irish, Italian communities etc who are all lumped together into the racist class of 'Whites'.

The video with Pat Buchanan here makes some good points, but note how the journalist has an agenda when debating the issue - this is because he is just another media idiot with no understanding of the complexity of the issue.

The idiot public listen to idiot media pundits and then believe their idiocy as fact.

This is how the media reinforces stupidity, by peddling stupidity as fact when in reality it is merely opinion.

Monday, 26 July 2010

Every day now the leadership challenge within the BNP is dragging the party deeper and deeper into the gutter.

The supporters on all sides are waging a war against each other that is causing immeasurable harm to the party and the British Nationalist movement.

It appears that there are people in the BNP who now want to purge everyone who has supported one of the leadership challengers and that there are some people in the BNP who now want to flounce off and set up a new political party to stand against the BNP and split the nationalist vote.

A split or purge serves only the interests of the enemies of the BNP.

Those that are clamouring for a split or a purge in the BNP are working for the enemies of the BNP and the enemies of British Nationalism.

At the same time the BNP has shed many excellent activists over recent years due to the constant internecine warfare between various groups and factions and other fallouts and disagreements.

These people must be able to re-engage with the nationalist cause.

But the last thing the British Nationalist movement needs is another political party to stand against the BNP in local, general and european elections.

This must not happen.

But at the same time we must get back on board all those people who for one reason or the other feel they cannot stay in the BNP or who have left the BNP.

This is why I and others have decided to establish a new Pan-European and European Nationalist political movement and political party in order to ensure the BNP does not split, that people who have the left the BNP can re-enter politics and to address a serious strategic and tactical flaw in the ideological evolution of British nationalism and also nationalist politics all over Europe.

This new party, the European National Alliance, is a political party that will not stand in local elections or general elections and will only stand in European Elections against the establishment traitors in the mainstream parties.

We will not stand against any British Nationalist parties in european elections, such as the BNP and UKIP, and only stand candidates against the Labour Party, Greens, Liberal Democrats and the Tories.

The ENA does not want British Nationalists to leave their present political parties and join the European Nationalist struggle, we want those who are European Nationalists and who are not members of any present political party to join our ranks or those who want to work for the interests of both British Nationalism and European Nationalism.

The ENA is an essential development in the pantheon of British political parties.

As the ENA is a pro-European people and European cultural party, but anti the European Union, we will cater to an entirely different political demographic to that of traditional British Nationalism.

I want people to remain in and support the BNP in all its local and general elections and european elections.

I will remain as an officer of the BNP as well as helping run the ENA.

In areas where there are elected UKIP and BNP MEP's the ENA will not stand any candidates.

The ENA is an organisation that seeks support from those who have European Nationalist principles and who want to takeover the EU from inside and use its wealth and power to promote European Nationalist principles.

The ENA will seek to spread European Nationalist ideas into the wider consciousness of the British public.

British Nationalists parties like UKIP and the BNP are parties that want to withdraw from the EU and who are Euro-sceptic.

There has never been any political organisation in Britain or the EU that explictly promotes European Nationalist principles.

There must be no split in the BNP and no purge of activists from within the BNP.

There must be no new political party formed to stand against the BNP in local, general and european elections.

This is an opportunity for those nationalists who have left the BNP over the years to re-engage in the nationalist struggle in a way that doesnt harm the development and growth of British Nationalism.

A full statement of the principles of the ENA are on the ENA site here ;

http://euronatall.blogspot.com/

A few facts on where we stand ;

A) Who are we ?

We are 21st Century Nationalists who are both Nationalists and European Nationalists.

B) What is European Nationalism ?

European Nationalism is a political movement that seeks to protect the indigenous cultures, heritage and indigenous peoples of Europe.

C) Aren't British Nationalism and European Nationalism opposed to each other ?

No.

As a British Nationalist or a German Nationalist or a French Nationalist we all work within our own countries for the benefit of our own people, but we also understand that in order to defend European civilisation from globalism we must work together for the benefit of all our people and for Europe itself.

D) Do you support a European Army and political integration ?

No.

A Free Europe depends on Free Nations, and a European Army would undermine our national freedoms.

Political integration is a usurpation of our national democracies and national sovereignty.

We stand for European co-operation not European integration.

E) Who can join the ENA ?

Anyone who agrees with our principles.

F) Will the ENA stand in local and general elections in the UK or elsewhere in Europe ?

No.

The ENA is simply a European Nationalist organisation.

We have no interest in splitting the Nationalist vote in local and general elections or competing against Nationalist parties in such elections.

As we are a European Nationalist Party we will not be taking votes from Nationalist parties in the European Elections either, as all the Nationalist politicians such as the BNP and UKIP stand for immediate withdrawal from the EU and are Euro-sceptics.

We do not support withdrawing from the EU, rather we stand for taking over the EU from the inside and then using its vast amount of power and wealth for the promotion of our European Nationalist principles and objectives.

We will also not stand against Nationalist or Patriotic parties in European Elections such as the BNP and UKIP who already have elected representatives.

In those areas with established BNP and UKIP elected representatives we will not put forward any candidates so as to ensure those people can gain the entire Nationalist and European Nationalist vote for themselves and ensure their re-election.

We will stand only in areas with elected Labour Party MEP's, Conservative Party MEP's, Green Party MEP's and Liberal Democrat MEP's.

As the ENA is a European Nationalist party which is not anti-Europe, but only anti-European Union, and is not Euro-sceptic, as we wish to stay inside the EU and use the power and wealth of the EU to promote our European Nationalist principles, we are appealing to a completely different political demographic to the Nationalist parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

Therefore there will be no competition between the ENA and parties like UKIP and the BNP in European Elections.

We wish the BNP and UKIP all the best in their local, general and European elections and hope to see them prosper and grow as Nationalist parties.

G) Will the ENA accept party memberships ?

Yes.

H) What is the difference between the European Nationalist Alliance and the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements ?

The AENM is a body composed of elected MEP's within the European Union and other anti-EU parties who do not have MEP's but who are also anti-EU and support withdrawal from the EU.

It intends to create a European political party that operates within the institution of the European Parliament, and it does not intend to create a Pan-European political party that operates across the entire European Union.

Each of the parties within the AENM are anti-EU and stand for withdrawal from the EU.

In the event of any of them winning power in a national election, those parties would unilaterally withdraw from the EU.

The AENM is in the perverse position that the more successful its constituent members are in their respective national elections, the weaker the AENM as a political bloc becomes within the EU.

If all the political parties in the AENM were to win power in their own countries they would all have to withdraw from the EU itself, and thereby weaken the position of the remaining Nationalist parties left inside the EU.

If all the political parties in the AENM were also to win power in their own countries and withdrew from the EU, then there would be no political parties left in the EU to articulate and promote European Nationalist interests.

Therefore a separate European Nationalist organisation, the ENA, is required in order to operate alongside the AENM in order to allow Nationalists and European Nationalists in those states that have withdrawn from the EU to cast their votes for a political party that represents European Nationalist principles.

The ENA will stay within the EU as a political bloc and act solely in the interests of European Nationalism, as opposed to the AENM which is comprised of political parties that have to represent the interests of their own internal party political constituencies and also in the national interest of their own respective nation states if they were elected into power.

The ENA acts solely for the principles of the ENA and European Nationalism itself.

This is why the ENA can work alongside the AENM on issues of mutual concern but will remain an independent European Nationalist movement inside the EU.

The ENA is a movement solely for the promotion of European Nationalist principles and hence must promote and act without pressure or coercion from Nationalist party leaders who have an internal Nationalist constituency within their own parties they must listen too and also, as elected leaders of a nation state, their own national interests to promote as well.

They could also be told to carry out investigations and live surveillance for their EU counterparts, despite already stretched resources.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will today announce she plans to sign up to the so-called European Investigation Order (EIO), The Daily Telegraph understands.

It comes despite concerns by fair trial campaigners and has angered backbench Tories.

It raises the prospect of personal details of individuals being passed on without their knowledge in the most minor of cases, such as leaving a restaurant without paying.

Foreign police officers would also be able to come to the UK and work alongside police here in investigating individuals, although they would not have any powers of arrest.

The EIO is designed to help law enforcement agencies in EU states share information and be more effective in combating cross border crime.

But Fair Trials International (FTI) said it could result in disproportionate requests, such as demands for the DNA of plane loads of British holidaymakers following a murder in a resort they had visited.

A report by FTI said: “This could include requests to interview suspects or witnesses or obtain information in real time, by intercepting and monitoring telephone or email communications or by monitoring activity in bank accounts.

“States could also be required to obtain or analyse DNA samples or fingerprints and send the information to the issuing state within fixed deadlines.”

Police would not be able to argue that the request or alleged offence being investigated is disproportionate.

Previous examples of minor criminal offences already pursued around Europe include a carpenter who fitted wardrobe doors and then removed them when the client refused to pay him and the Polish authorities requesting the extradition of a suspect for theft of a dessert.

The directive still has to be signed off by the European Parliament but once that happens and the UK opts in, it will apply across the EU.

Under the system, a court or prosecutor, at the request of local police, can ask for information on individuals in relation to an alleged crime.

All requests would go through the Home Office but could only be refused if they breach immunity rules, are sensitive to national security, breach human rights laws or affect an ongoing investigation.

Police would also have to access the information under the same procedures as they would if they were investigating it as a UK crime.

“There are scant safeguards to protect the personal information of law-abiding British citizens.

“These serious issues should be properly debated in Parliament, before the UK decides to opt in.”

David Davis, the Tory MP and former shadow home secretary, added: “This is clearly a highly controversial order and of huge importance to everyone – from the police service with its scarce resources to the rights of our citizens.

“Clearly, this should go in front of the House of Commons to be debated before Britain sings up to something that will be impossible to reverse out of.”

The FTI report said the directive is “far from satisfactory in terms of guaranteeing fundamental rights and ensuring proportionality”.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The Government is currently considering whether or not we should opt in to the European Investigation Order.

"As we pledged in the coalition document, the Government will approach legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.”

The BNP have to make Housing Policy Change our next issue to campaign on, especially in the countryside.

We must demand a Community Cohesion Policy that puts local families and local people first in relation to local housing needs, and end the giveaway of housing stock to h immigrants and asylum seekers who have just walked into the country.

Outsiders aren't welcome, say villagersWhen villagers were asked for innovative ways to improve their community, it was hardly the anticipated answer but it was certainly clear: “No outsiders.”

By Stephen AdamsPublished: 6:50AM BST 26 Jul 2010The Village Inn at TwyningTwyning is a picture-postcard community between the Avon and Severn in Gloucestershire Photo: ALAMY

It appears the people of Twyning, a picture-postcard community between the Avon and Severn in Gloucestershire, like their village just the way it is.

They insisted they were not bigoted nor over-parochial and said such strict control was the only way to protect their rural harmony from “problem families” and “whacking great housing developments”.

Related Articles

* Rory Stewart: constituents tied trousers with string * Phone box: open all hours * Water thieves plunge Suffolk village into drought * The simple joys of working men's clubs * Mary Evans * Scrapping quangos must not be 'change for change's sake'

Twyning - pronounced "twinning" - can trace its history beyond 740AD and it was listed in the Domesday Book as Tveninge, when its population was “37 villagers and 10 slaves”.

Local historians believe its modern name comes from an Old English phrase meaning “the folk living in the land between the two rivers”.

And that is they way they said they wanted it to say when asked for ideas on how to improve housing across the local borough of Tewkesbury.

Parish councillors said only people with a “genuine connection” should be given council housing within the village boundaries.

They told the local authority: “We would welcome a change to the criteria for occupation of “affordable housing” within village environments.”

The council chairman, Jeremy Horsfall, said allowing an influx of outsiders would spoil the “atmosphere” of the village.

He said: “If the poor were in the village then I would be happy. We are not saying because they are poor they should not come here. It’s about having a connection to the village.

”[And] we don't want the village atmosphere to be changed by a whacking great housing development."

He added that local authorities might find it easier to persuade villages of the need for social housing if “they knew it would only be used for tenants with a genuine local connection and not for just anyone”.

The council’s views were well supported among the roughly 1,800 residents.

Dave Baker, 57, landlord of The Village Inn, said both his grown-up sons had been forced to move out as they could not afford to stay.

He said: “There’s no affordable housing for youngsters to get a foot on the ladder.”

If none was built in the future, “I should imagine youngsters will all move out and it will become a community of silver-haired people,” he said.

One villager, who did not want to be identified, said part of the reason was the villagers wanted to stop “problem families” moving in from elsewhere, especially the larger nearby towns in Gloucestershire and neighbouring Worcestershire.

“Sometimes villages have finished up with problem families and I think that's possibly the basis of it,” the source said.

The issue is an important one for the village – and for many across the country – particularly because, under the existing county-wide strategy, Tewkesbury borough was earmarked to see its population increase by 26,000 over the next two decades, or 35 per cent.

By contrast, Gloucestershire as a whole is only expected to see an 8.4 per cent increase.

A spokesman for Shelter, the housing charity, said the issue should not be about where a prospective tenant was from.

“Scarce affordable housing must go to those in the greatest need,” she said.

According to the Department for Communities and Local Government, it is up to local councils to decide who can occupy affordable housing.

A spokesman said: “Housing allocation policy is set by the local council and takes into account different priorities and those in the greatest need, which could include criteria on local connections.”

Scotland Yard will now face pressure to renounce Azad Ali, the new chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, which is recognised by the Met under a formal written agreement as "the principal body in relation to Muslim community safety and security".

The deal says that the Met will "use the MSF as a consultation body to help formulate policy or practice". Mr Ali was the founding chair of the MSF in 2006, but left that job in 2008 and resigned entirely from the group last year after publicity over his extremist comments. Last week, he was quietly reappointed as its chairman.

Mr Ali is a senior official of the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), which works, in its own words, to create an Islamic state under sharia law in Europe. The IFE and the MSF share the same offices.

He has previously praised a key mentor of Osama bin Laden. Earlier this year, he was filmed by an undercover reporter from Channel 4's Dispatches stating: "Democracy, if it means not implementing the sharia, of course nobody agrees with that."

When the documentary was aired, Mr Ali attacked the reporter on the IFE's official radio station, saying: "We've got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We've tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I've just said into a threat, that's their fault, innit?"

Mr Ali's comments about terrorism were made on his official blog on the IFE website. Earlier this year, he lost a libel action against a newspaper which reported them. The judge, Mr Justice Eady, said that Mr Ali "was indeed taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified", describing his claim as "bound to fail" and having an "absence of reality".

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and counterterrorism expert, said: "It beats me why the police should want to take the advice of this man. They should have nothing to do with him. I know for a fact that there are just as knowledgeable members of the Muslim community who do not share his subversive views."

ASYLUM seekers seeking permission to stay in Britain are being offered free swimming pool or gym sessions while they wait, it emerged yesterday.

More than 250 people from other countries have so far made use of a special card that gets them into council leisure facilities that residents – and even pensioners – have to pay to use.

Britons wanting to join the scheme – operating in Newcastle – can expect to pay up to £180 a year for the city council’s Leisure Plus card.

But 256 of the city’s 480 asylum seekers have taken up the offer of a free card, at a cost to council taxpayers of £7,000.

Bureaucrats regard the scheme as so successful it may be copied by other local authorities around the country.

Your Homes Newcastle, responsible for housing the applicants, says the scheme prevents users from feeling isolated in a strange country, and encourages them to become part of the community in which they are living.

But TaxPayers’ Alliance spokeswoman Emma Boon said: “Offering one group of people a particular service for free, whilst others, including pensioners, are paying is likely to create divisions in the local community.”

Applicants must be able to prove their asylum seeker status to qualify for the card, which is valid for six months and includes free use of Newcastle’s state-of-the-art Centre for Sport complex.

Compared to the arse licking, pension chasing, peerage lusting, career obsessed, politically correct idiot halfwits that run the British police, the Irish police are the best I have ever seen.

Why did Gordon Brown not just say to the banksters who caused the credit crisis and economic collapse' You can all fuck off if you think you are getting a penny out of the tax payer. We are going to create a Bank Of Britain just as the BNP recommended and we will then invest the 850 billion pounds you wanted from us into this new bank and thereby use Fractional Reserve Banking rules to release 10 trillion pounds in new capital to invest in national infra-structure projects, British manufacturing jobs and new nuclear power plants ".

There would have been no economic crash, no job losses and Britain would have experienced a renewal.

Instead Gordon Brown the fucking idiot gave the money to the same capitalist and globalist filth banksters that ruined the economy, and now Cameron the Fop is destroying the Welfare State to pay the money back.

For fucks sake is there no clearer example of treason and stupidity.

Cops Charge Irish Government With TreasonPosted on July 22, 2010 by Fools Crow5 Votes

Quantcast

by Gabriel Donohoe

When a national police association accuses its government of what amounts to treason it is time to sit up and pay attention.

Michael O’Boyce, President of the Garda Representative Association (GRA), said at its annual conference in Limerick, at the end of April, 2010, that the Irish Government had been ‘corrupted’ and had been ‘bought’ by developers and bankers. (A garda is an Irish policeman, gardaí in the plural.)

Mr. O’Boyce, speaking on behalf of the country’s 11,000 gardaí, charged government ministers with sacrificing the country to protect ‘wealthy cronies’ who had bankrolled the leading government party, Fianna Fáil. Such criticism of a serving government by its police force is unprecedented in Irish history and extremely rare in any western democracy.

Smarting from recent government disparagement of the gardaí a rankled Mr. O’Boyce pointed to an aggravating Fianna Fáil gaffe. While the government referred to the gardaí as ‘self-serving, overpaid, underworked and dishonest people’, it at the same time praised the ‘entrepreneurial skill’ and ‘business acumen’ of failed banksters like Sean Fitzpatrick (Anglo Irish Bank) and Michael Fingleton (Irish Nationwide Building Society), two people who played a huge part in bringing the Irish economy to its knees.

Clearly infuriated by collapsing living standards and the abject state of the economy, Mr. O’Boyce intended to deliver his speech directly to the Minister of Justice, Dermot Ahern, who was scheduled to attend the annual conference of the GRA. However, Mr. Ahern was sent a copy of the speech in advance and hastily declined to attend.

Mr. O’Boyce would have castigated the Justice Minister directly by saying, “The Government of which you are a long-serving member has mismanaged the wealth of this country for more than a decade by allowing our assets to be plundered and robbed by bankers and speculators, and you are making generations of Irish workers pay the price for this treachery…

“…You did this because bankers and speculators have bought your party, and in return you have sacrificed the greater good and prosperity of the Irish nation for the benefit of the few – the few who have now taken their ill-gotten gains and secured them in tax havens around the world. Truly, a government of national sabotage.”

Gardaí present at the meeting gave Mr. O’Boyce a standing ovation for the speech of which they were aware but which was never actually made. Nonetheless, the speech was angrily criticised by politicians and others who said that a police force should not intervene in politics. Justice Minister Ahern said that he utterly refuted the allegations made in the speech and that such remarks “besmirch the reputation of the force and have no place in a modern democracy.”

Government backbencher Niall Collins said, “…[F]or me to hear a member of An Garda Síochána accuse a sovereign Government of robbery, corruption and treason, and this coming from a member of An Garda Síochána who are the agents of the State to investigate and prosecute these types of crimes, it’s just clearly not sustainable.”

This is an amazing attack on a modern democratic government described by the country’s own police association as “a government of national sabotage.” What prompted such wrath and fury from the GRA and does the Association have any basis for charging the Irish Government with treachery or treason?

The underlying cause of garda frustration and anger is the state of the Irish economy. The gardaí, like most Irish citizens, blame government incompetence and collusion with banksters and speculators for economic collapse. The government itself points to global recession and international bank failures as the cause of Irish woes but the reality goes much deeper than that.

The economic depression in Ireland is much more severe than anywhere else in the world. The fallout from global recession was seriously exacerbated by shortcomings of Irish Government Ministers, i.e., flagrant failures of governance through incompetence, self-interest, and criminal recklessness. These failures were further amplified by the cronyism and cosy intimacy of Fianna Fáil politicians with bankers and developers, by the utter ineptitude of government regulators, and by the laissez-faire attitude of the then Finance Minister, Brian Cowen, towards an alarmingly inflating construction bubble. (Cowen is now the Irish Prime Minister or Taoiseach and is stubbornly clinging onto power even though his personal rating is a paltry 18% in opinion polls.)

What angers the GRA, apart from hair shirt budgets, welfare cuts, and cuts in public sector pay, are the huge amounts of money given to renegade banks. These astronomical sums, cavalierly tossed into the laps of fraudulent bankers, are underwritten by the ever-suffering Irish taxpayer. A massive 22 billion euro has gone into the corrupt Anglo Irish Bank which has the dubious distinction of being the worst bank in the world. It is the biggest loss-maker of any bank on the planet and the Irish bank bailout is the most expensive bailout anywhere on the globe.

The Irish people are now learning that they will never see a penny of their 22 billion euro again – it has disappeared into a black hole of bankster-generated debt. The new chief executive of Anglo has admitted that the money would never be seen again and Prime Minister Cowen grudgingly confirmed, only after four attempts by opposition leaders to get a straight answer, that the 22 billion euro is gone forever. This is a heartbreaking loss for a small country of less than 5 million people, many of whom are calling the bailing out of Anglo an act of criminal recklessness.

Responding to a recent government decision to extend the bank guarantee to Anglo Irish Bank, Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore said, “I believe that the decision was made to save the skins of a number of individuals, some of whom are connected to Fianna Fail. If my belief is correct, and I have not been convinced to the contrary, then that decision was an act of economic treason.”

Strong words indeed from Mr. Gilmore which echo the sentiments of Michael O’Boyce and the GRA.

Even worse than the Anglo Irish Bank fiasco is the government bank bailout programme called NAMA (National Asset Management Agency) which covers 5 Irish banks including Anglo Irish. The government says that NAMA will clean up the banking system by paying the banks 54 billion euro of taxpayer money to purchase toxic loans from their balance sheets. This is a huge risk which could blow up spectacularly and put several generations of Irish people into excessive debt.

Already we are seeing evidence that the banks lied about the quality of the loans on their books. At the time of agreeing values on their toxic property portfolios the banks assured the government that 40% of their loans were income producing. Now we find out that the real figure is only 25%. What the percentage will be in a year’s time is anyone’s guess.

Apart from NAMA and the Anglo Irish Bank bailout, the Irish Government has already recapitalized other Irish banks and financial institutions to the amount of some 13.5 billion euro. This was supposed to release funds and provide much needed credit to Small Business and to mortgage seekers. But the banks which were bailed out by the people of Ireland are not responding in kind to the people of Ireland. They are holding onto their funds while businesses are failing in unprecedented numbers for want of working capital. Much of the bailout money is being used by the banks to strengthen their balance sheets or to make safe investments elsewhere.

(In the United States, banks find it more profitable and free of risk to borrow from the Federal Reserve at .25% interest and buy 5-year Treasury bonds at 2.5% return rather than lend money to cash starved businesses. They can make enormous profits while thousands of businesses go to the wall.)

When one adds up the amount of money committed to recapitalization and bailout of Irish banks one arrives at a figure of some 90 billion euro.

If the Irish Government had invested this 90 billion in a state owned bank they could have implemented that sleight of hand practice so beloved of banksters called “Fractional Reserve Lending” whereby they could create and lend some 12 times the amount of capital invested. This would exceed 1,000 billion euro!

Ireland would be awash with cash and with prudent management the economy would have been turned around very quickly. Small businesses would have adequate working capital, home seekers could buy homes, public projects and infrastructure could be easily financed, and Ireland would return very swiftly to full employment.

But the government did not take that option. Instead, they pledged a colossal amount of money to private banksters to save them and their investors from losses incurred by their own criminal recklessness. In doing so, they have mortgaged the future of Ireland and the Irish people for generations to come and crippled the economy to levels often seen in the Third World.

By giving billions of public money to maintain the fortunes of its former cronies in banking and property development the Irish Government has created a living hell for its struggling citizens: almost 500,000 people out of work, 200,000 emigrating in search of jobs, tens of thousands of mortgages falling into arrears, hundreds of small businesses going to the wall, and suicides alarmingly on the rise. The land is filled with misery and despair when it could so easily have been triumph and prosperity.

Is Michael O’Boyce and the GRA correct when they charge the Irish Government with treason?

Saturday, 24 July 2010

What did I tell you would happen when the Lib-Con Zionist Occupation Government was elected.

Yep, that they would continue the same anti-white racist affirmative action laws as New Labour and they would continue to racially discriminate against whites.

Hey Baron Bethelll and Nothing British About the BNP - WHAT DID I TELL YOU !

But hey the Baron James Bethell is alright as he is a multi-millionaire not a university graduate with £40,000 worth of student debt to repay and who has now to suffer the indignity of watching the racist Lib-Con government apply racist rules to destroy our meritocracy and to racially discriminate against whites.

I told you that the Tories were as PC as New Labour, but hey you voted for them as the media told you too.

Its not enough that we are spending 13 billion pounds a year of foreigners via the foreign aid budget, now the foreign office is using racist laws to prevent white British people from having jobs in the foreign office.

Thats simply treason.

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you’re a middle class white male

William Hague was last night plunged into a row over new ­Foreign Office rules which ban white males from gaining work experience at his department.

The Foreign Secretary was challenged to explain why his ­official work placement schemes specifically ban white, middle-class males from applying for the £367-a-week positions.

Under the tightly-drawn rules, only women, people from ethnic ­minorities and the ­disabled are ­entitled to apply for a chance to work at one of the great offices of state.

The placements give students a head start in the battle to win ­coveted jobs in the diplomatic service and possibly rise through the ranks to become an ambassador. Only one category of non-minority male applicants stand a chance – those whose families are poor enough to entitle them to qualify for a full student maintenance grant.

The bizarre ‘middle-class male’ ban came to light after Tory MP Dominic Raab was contacted by an irate ­constituent who tried to obtain work experience at the department.

Esher MP Mr Raab, an ­international lawyer who worked at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for six years, said last night: ‘I am raising this issue on behalf of a ­disappointed constituent barred from even applying for Foreign Office work experience because he did not fit the social quota criteria.

‘We surely need to scale back the unfair political correctness of the last Government. But we will not end discrimination in our society by introducing it through the back door, which is what positive discrimination like this does.’

Mr Raab has now written to Mr Hague asking him to intervene and review the work placement rules.

The Foreign Office, which employs 20,000 staff in the UK and around the world, operates three work ­placement schemes:

* A summer development programme open to ‘talented individuals’ from black or ethnic minority backgrounds; * A summer placement scheme for ‘talented students’ with a registered disability; and * A university placement scheme open to female students, students from an ethnic minority background and students who come from a household with an income of £25,000 or lower.

Westminster sources last night said the programmes came about after Robin Cook, the former Labour Foreign Secretary, arrived at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s headquarters in Whitehall and was horrified to see so many former public schoolboys working there.

Last night, the FCO insisted the schemes were legal and were designed to appeal to students who might not normally consider a career in the FCO.

A spokeswoman said: ‘This includes students from an ethnic minority background and those with a disability, as well as ­students who are in receipt of a full maintenance grant.’

The spokeswoman added: ‘People from these backgrounds are currently under-represented in the FCO.

'We believe that by having a more diverse and multicultural workforce the FCO is better able to represent British interests around the world.’

There was ‘absolutely no discrimination’ in the department’s normal job recruitment process, she insisted.

But in a later statement, the FCO said the work experience schemes would now ‘be placed under review’.

It is apparent that the way some of the supporters on all sides in the leadership election are acting, that none of them care for the party or the future of British Nationalism.

It appears that supporters on all sides are motivated by hostility to each other, personal hatred and petty spite - and that few are acting in the interests of the party or the movement that they profess to serve and respect.

I understand that there are already whispers of people setting up a new party if they fail to win the leadership election or if certain suspended activists are removed from the party.

The only people who will benefit from the setting up of a new political party or purging existing members from the BNP are the enemies of British Nationalism.

The BNP is the ONLY political party that has the political clout to compete in the electoral process.

Any new party will appear, fade and vanish as quickly as Robert Kilroy Silks 'Vanitas' (or was it Veritas ?).

Veritas had the benefit of a well known and well off leader.

Any new political party will have neither money nor a figurehead leader, and it will have to compete in elections against the BNP, NF and UKIP and thereby split the nationalist vote even further into impotent salami slices.

Those who say we need a new party to stand against the BNP, NF or UKIP in local, general and european elections are either idiots or working for the enemy.

Nick Griffin has announced that by 2014 he will leave the BNP to work on European projects.

That means by 2014 we have to have a whole new leadership ready to take over from Nick, and this leadership has to be elected solely on their merits and not as a puppet of any faction.

Note that I said LEADERSHIP as opposed to leader.

We need to have a team of people ready to run the party and not just a new leader.

We do not need a new 'leader'- what we need is new 'leadership'.

At the same time as we have a new leadership and leadership structure we will need a new party constitution and a whole new internal party structure developed to ensure the party can operate under this new leadership model.

No-one can run the BNP the same way that Nick Griffin does.

No-one in the party has the decades of experience of Nick nor his charisma and media skills.

To expect any new leader to run the party the way Nick does is not just unfair, it will be impossible.

I have the utmost respect for the courage of Nick Griffin.

Everywhere he goes he is recognised and at risk of attack.

This is an unfair state of affairs for anyone to have to live with, especially a family man with children.

Therefore the moment Nick resigns we must have a new leadership who will immediately change the internal party structure to ensure that party can continue to operate without Nick at the helm.

This means rather than power in the party remaining centralised around just one person, the powers exercised by Nick must immediately be devolved down to an Executive Council whose role is then to scrutinise and agree on party policy, finances, appointments etc by debate and consensus.

The role of the Chairman in such a new internal structure would simply be to cast the deciding vote in any internal decision making process in the event of any vote not having a majority.

The Chairman would be elected by the Executive Council and his / her powers would simply be to ensure the decisions of the council are taken properly, all relevant information is made available to the council and that officers tasked with responsibilities given to them by the council are fulfilled properly.

All decisions must be made on the grounds of a simple majority vote amongst the Executive Council.

Regional Organisers should be appointed by local members not by a single person. All appointments must be verified and approved by the Council.

Officers must be appointed by the Executive Council on the grounds of merit and proven loyalty to the party.

Candidates must earn the right to stand as candidates by demonstrating over a two year period their commitment to both the party and their communities before they are allowed to stand as candidates.

At the same time the entire financial, decision making process and appointments of officers must be 100 % transparent to members of the Executive Council, officers and members of the party.

We do not need just a new leader, we need new LEADERS.

If people in the party think that after Nick resigns that anyone else in the party can do the job Nick does, then they are wrong.

Nick is the only man who can do Nicks job.

That is why when he resigns the entire party structure, leadership and constitution have to change to recognise this.

That is why any new leadership has to be elected on a platform of change in order to abolish the present powers of the leader and undertake the revolutionary internal changes required to allow the party to grow and prosper in the post-Griffin era.

The only leadership this party requires, are the ones with the brains to realise that we do not a new 'leader'.

The more trusted officers who have input into a decision before it taken, the better that decision will be.

The role of the leaders elected after Nick retires is to devolve power down to an Executive Council.

Any leadership / leader that is elected after Nick resigns and who seeks to retain the powers of Nick and the present constitution, is not a fit person to lead the BNP.

Such vanity and ego will lead to its own Nemesis.

We therefore have to accept that the true leaders of the future are the ones who understand that true leadership comes from the example one sets to our own people and the party, and it is NOT the ability to issue orders and demands to people.

In order to lead others, one must first lead by example and so lead the way for others to follow.

The actions of some of the supporters of the leadership election candidates and also the supporters of the present leadership challengers have been nothing but disgraceful.

These idiots on all sides are as bad as each other.

All have damaged the party and the movement by their actions.

Therefore such people have demonstrated their unfitness for any leadership role in the party, either before or after Nick leaves.

I have read that some of these supporters of Nick want to 'purge' the supporters of the leadership challenge from the party, and thereby create a disgruntled group of people who will go off and form a new party to compete against the BNP.

Other supporters of the other challengers have said that if they lose the election they will flounce off and form a new party to fight against the BNP and split our vote, and hence ensure we cannot win elections in the future.

The ONLY people who will benefit from a purge or mass defections are the enemies of the British people, British Nationalism and the British nation.

The BNP must not split and there must not be any purges.

In 2014 Nick will be dedicating himself to the essential role of building a Pan-Nationalist Network of MEP's in the European Parliament.

This 'Alliance of European Nationalists' will seek to form a voting block in the EU in order to promote their European Nationalist principles.

This is an essential development within the EU.

I do not know if there will be any purges from the BNP by the supporters of Nick.

I do not know if disgruntled members will walk away from the party.

I hope not on both counts.

But if either events happen then I have a proposal to ensure that the interests of the British Nationalist movement are not damaged.

Tomorrow I will detail what these proposals are.

If the Doomsday Option arrives and a purge or mass defections begin, then the struggle for our people and nation is over.

If one of these KFC outlets is near you then stick a few posters up in the area with pictures of halal butchery and demand people do not go into KFC.

At KFC we listen to our customers to help us to evolve our menu and the choices we offer. For some time, we have received requests to provide Halal food in parts of the UK and as a result of this, we are running a Halal trial within communities where we anticipate a strong demand for Halal products.

A woman saved from deportation by a high-profile campaign has been jailed for ten months after killing a child while driving without a licence.

Four-year-old Caitlan Fitzhugh, of Coronation Street, Openshaw, was walking hand-in-hand on the pavement with her mum Stacey Strutt when she was hit by a Ford Transit van which mounted the kerb.

The van careered into the youngster after being hit by a Ford Focus driven by heavily pregnant Eucharia Jakpa, who had no licence.

Jakpa, who along with her then unborn baby were unhurt, had only taken a driving theory test at the time of the accident but had been driving around unsupervised.

Her car had 'L' plates on at the time of the smash.

At Manchester Crown Court, the 40-year-old of Kenyon Street, Gorton, was jailed for ten months after admitting causing death by careless driving and banned from driving for five years.

Jakpa, an asylum seeker from the troubled Delta region of Nigeria, came to Britain in 2004 claiming that her family was facing persecution and violence because of her husband's political activism.

Who else has beeen locked up in July? Sentences and photo gallery

She said that her husband and daughter had disappeared, presumed dead, and that she and her young son Timeyi faced torture or murder if they were forced to go back.

In 2007, less than two years before the smash, she was saved from deportation by a community campaign and won indefinite leave to remain in Britain.

The court heard that on the morning of September 11, 2009, Caitlan was walking down Parkhouse Street, Openshaw, on her way to the doctor’s surgery.

Witnesses describe seeing Jakpa make no attempt to brake or slow down as she approached the ‘Give Way’ junction with Parkhouse Street from Greenside Street.

She ploughed into a Ford Transit being driven by Darren McDowell down Greenside Street seconds after he slammed his foot on the brake in a desperate bid to avoid the crash.

The van was sent careering onto the pavement by the force of the collision where it hit Caitlan and her mum. They were just 500 yards from their home.

Miss Strutt escaped with injuries to her knee. But her daughter Caitlan was fatally wounded and died in hospital at 10.40am, just over an hour after the accident.

Adrian Farrow, prosecuting, said: “Miss Strutt had no forewarning. The moment she heard the impact of the two vehicles the Transit van had collided with her and Caitlan.”

When interviewed by police four months after the crash Jakpa sought to blame Mr McDowell for the accident and claimed witnesses had ‘manufactured’ their accounts.

But earlier this month she abandoned that version of events by admitting death by careless driving.

Andrew Nuttall, defending, said Mrs Jakpa felt ‘real and heartfelt remorse’, but had originally struggled ‘getting to grips’ with the fact she had taken a life.

Pain

He admitted she had ‘behaved badly’ by seeking to blame the other driver. But he maintained that the ‘committed Christian’ had understanding of the ‘enormous pain’ felt by Caitlan’s family, since her husband and daughter had been killed in Nigeria.

He added that Mrs Jakpa, who has two other children, knew ‘there’s going to come a day when she’s going to have to explain to those two children what she has done’.

Mr Nuttall said: “Something happened at that point where she went through the ‘Give Way’. No-one in their right mind would do that – you risk your own life and other people’s lives.

“She's gone through this a million times but she has no answer, she simply can’t explain it and can’t understand it.”

Mrs Jakpa was charged with causing death by careless driving rather than death by dangerous driving after the prosecution accepted that she did not go through the junction deliberately or maliciously.

In court the case was judged to be the second most serious category for an offence of this kind, and so carried a sentencing range between a community order and two years, with a typical starting point of 36 weeks.

Had Mrs Jakpa been convicted at a trial she would have received 15 months, but because she pleaded guilty she was entitled to a third off, bringing her time behind bars down to ten months.

Sentencing Judge Robert Atherton said: “Your remorse has been slow in coming. I accept it must be very difficult to come to terms with the fact that your behaviour has led to the death of anyone, particularly a child, but to me you have exhibited not just a sense of that difficulty but gone beyond it.